https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774517 ITAT Chennai allowed assessee's appeal regarding denial of deduction under section 54F. AO denied deduction solely because assessee failed to deposit net consideration in specific bank account within prescribed time under section 54F(4). However, AO did not examine compliance with section 54(1) requirements. Following ITO v. Vinod Gugnani precedent, non-compliance with deposit requirement cannot deny section 54(1) benefits. Since AO failed to verify whether assessee invested net consideration in new asset, matter remanded to AO for proper verification of compliance with investment requirements. en-us Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jul 2025 08:39:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774517 ITAT Chennai allowed assessee's appeal regarding denial of deduction under section 54F. AO denied deduction solely because assessee failed to deposit net consideration in specific bank account within prescribed time under section 54F(4). However, AO did not examine compliance with section 54(1) requirements. Following ITO v. Vinod Gugnani precedent, non-compliance with deposit requirement cannot deny section 54(1) benefits. Since AO failed to verify whether assessee invested net consideration in new asset, matter remanded to AO for proper verification of compliance with investment requirements. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774517